Jump to content

General Election


SMEE

Recommended Posts

Just noticed that UKIP and the BNP got a lot more votes than the SNP.

Yes, but then you have to remember that they are UK wide Parties. the SNP are Scotland only. I am really dissapointed by how poor the Socialist Parties have done.

I see George Galloway didn't get in either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 144
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Just noticed that UKIP and the BNP got a lot more votes than the SNP.

BNP stood in a lot more constituencies, where they averaged 1,500 votes. Hardly a breakthrough. They were in control of 12 out of 13 councillors in Barking before the election. Lost every one of them on the night. Very unsuccessful if you look at the bigger picture.

If Labour and Lib Dem form a pact (SDLP is the Northern Irish Labour Party, whilst the Alliance is the LD equivalent), they have a majority. No need for PC/SNP but anyway I can't see Labour wanting big cuts to Wales and Scotland, plus PC and SNP both want PR. It's all up to what Cameron can give Clegg. And I just can't see it being enough.

I actually think having someone in (i.e. Lib Dems) to stop either Labour going for ID Cards etc, or the Tories millionaire giveaway taxes is pretty much what the electorate wants. Have either concentrate on the economy (with hopefully voting reform), instead of ideology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our electoral system stinks. It is totally wrong that a party that attracts a minority even of those who bother to vote can have an overall majority of seats within Parliament and push forward whatever ill considered proposals it likes and get them enshrined in law. It stinks even more in that minority parties attracting less than 10% of the popular vote will usually not have any representation at all in a chamber of over 630 representatives. Those people become completely disenfranchised. And remember, this is not a tiny minority of "fringe" views that are not being heard in parliament, it is the views of several million people.

This why this election has been really good for two reasons. Firstly there is the election of the Green's leader Caroline Lucas. Winning a seat in a hotly contested first past the post election is a quite astonishing achievement. And whilst the Greens will remain hugely under represented in terms of quantity, Ms Lucas will make up for it in terms of quality. She has been on Question Time a few times and eloquently demolishes the myth that the Green Party are only concerned about environmental issues.

The second reason is that with a hung parliament there is now a chance for the big two to get a dose of their own medicine and be on the receiving end of somebody else's disproprtionate amount of power. Nick Clegg is now the power broker here and has a glorious opportunity to help introduce true democracy into our parliamentary system. Rather than enter into any kind of sordid coalition, Nick Clegg should be telling Cameron that until Cameron sets a date for a new election under a PR system, the Lib Dems will vote against everything the Tories try to push through unless there is a complelling need to support it in the national interest.

We might then have an election where people can vote for the party which best represents their views rather than for the party which they feel has the best chance of stopping the one they least like. It will also mean that we have a parliament which truly represents the views of the electorate. Let's hope Nick Clegg can act with the courage and humilty to finally deliver democracy to the UK and not with greedy self interest in accepting some position in a seedy coalition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our electoral system stinks. It is totally wrong that a party that attracts a minority even of those who bother to vote can have an overall majority of seats within Parliament and push forward whatever ill considered proposals it likes and get them enshrined in law. It stinks even more in that minority parties attracting less than 10% of the popular vote will usually not have any representation at all in a chamber of over 630 representatives.

It's a strange consequence of demographics and statistics. The way the population of the UK is distributed is such that in order to get the threshold 326 MPs, Labour has to realise the smallest % of the vote, the next is the Tories while for the LibDems the % is a good deal higher. It's to do with concentration of vote and it's quite demographically biased towards Labour. If you are highly concentrated in certain areas, you will be strong enough there to be first past the post in more that half of the seats and sod the rest. Hence Labour are wiped out in Cheltenham, but it doesn't matter. The more evenly you are spread, the more difficult it is for you to the 1st past the post in a large number of seats.

On the other hand the LibDems actually gain in Scotland because their vote is more patchy than elsewhere in the UK, especially in the Highlands and Islands where they have five seats.

By the way, whatever happened to Big Alec's 20 seats he said he was going to get to make them "dance a Scottish Jig? :lol::lol: The SNP seem to have tumbled big time back to 2005 levels since the heady days of the 2007 blip which got them into power at Holyrood by a few hundred votes. With less than 1 in 5 now voting for the SNP, Alec must now be bricking it big time about next year's Scottish elections.

Maybe Wee Wendy's challenge to "bring it on" with an Independence referendum was really quite a politically astute opportunity which the non SNP .... sorry "London Parties" :lol: ... have missed.

And what about the Tories? Since Maggie Thatcher, nobody (unsurprisingly) seems to love them in Scotland.

As for Yngwie's suggestion that the BNP polled more than the SNP... that's inevitable since the SNP only stand in 59 constituencies whereas the BNP have got 650 to choose from and in each one you are bound to get 1000 or so Fascist Loonies or complete cretins who just don't understand just how utterly sinister these Sons of Adolf actually are.

See British Politics. Between one thing and another, not a lot to choose from, eh? :angry:

Edited by Charles Bannerman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our electoral system stinks. It is totally wrong that a party that attracts a minority even of those who bother to vote can have an overall majority of seats within Parliament and push forward whatever ill considered proposals it likes and get them enshrined in law. It stinks even more in that minority parties attracting less than 10% of the popular vote will usually not have any representation at all in a chamber of over 630 representatives.

It's a strange consequence of demographics and statistics. The way the population of the UK is distributed is such that in order to get the threshold 326 MPs, Labour has to realise the smallest % of the vote, the next is the Tories while for the LibDems the % is a good deal higher. It's to do with concentration of vote and it's quite demographically biased towards Labour. If you are highly concentrated in certain areas, you will be strong enough there to be first past the post in more that half of the seats and sod the rest. Hence Labour are wiped out in Cheltenham, but it doesn't matter. The more evenly you are spread, the more difficult it is for you to the 1st past the post in a large number of seats.

On the other hand the LibDems actually gain in Scotland because their vote is more patchy than elsewhere in the UK, especially in the Highlands and Islands where they have five seats.

By the way, whatever happened to Big Alec's 20 seats he said he was going to get to make them "dance a Scottish Jig? :lol::lol:The SNP seem to have tumbled big time back to 2005 levels since the heady days of the 2007 blip which got them into power at Holyrood by a few hundred votes. With less than 1 in 5 now voting for the SNP, Alec must now be bricking it big time about next year's Scottish elections.

Maybe Wee Wendy's challenge to "bring it on" with an Independence referendum was really quite a politically astute opportunity which the non SNP .... sorry "London Parties" :lol: ... have missed.

And what about the Tories? Since Maggie Thatcher, nobody (unsurprisingly) seems to love them in Scotland.

As for Yngwie's suggestion that the BNP polled more than the SNP... that's inevitable since the SNP only stand in 59 constituencies whereas the BNP have got 650 to choose from and in each one you are bound to get 1000 or so Fascist Loonies or complete cretins who just don't understand just how utterly sinister these Sons of Adolf actually are.

See British Politics. Between one thing and another, not a lot to choose from, eh? :lol:

its hardly a tumble down when everyones come out with the same seats they had in 2005 :angry:

its a touch ironic that if you take scotland out of the equation, labour have been resoundly beaten and the conservatives would be sitting now with a majority and confortably in power.Meanwhile for labour to have any hope of clinging to power they need to get into bed with the libdems and snp, and pc so still room for a wee jig maybe :lol:

Any comparisons in voting between the scottish elections and uk ones and projections for next years election in scotland are laughable though i have to say :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And whilst the Greens will remain hugely under represented in terms of quantity, Ms Lucas will make up for it in terms of quality. She has been on Question Time a few times and eloquently demolishes the myth that the Green Party are only concerned about environmental issues.

True, but on the podiums last night there seemed to be the steroetypical weirdy beardies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what about the Tories? Since Maggie Thatcher, nobody (unsurprisingly) seems to love them in Scotland.

The ironic thing is that during her reign they had a reasonable number of seats in Scotland, and I recall that even in the early 90's they had 10 or 11 seats when Major won. Wiped out since then though, but as others have pointed out, our voting system does funny things when you consider the close share of vote here: SNP 20%, LD 19%, Con 17%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

for labour to have any hope of clinging to power they need to get into bed with the libdems and snp, and pc

Actually they don't.

To form a majority, a party needs 650/2 = 325 - 1 (Tory Speaker) - 5 (Sinn Feinn, who don't take their seats) = 319

For historical reasons, Northern Ireland has different parties, even though they are just the Northern Irish branches of the UK mainland parties, so:

Labour whip = Labour (258) + SDLP (3) = 261

Lib Dem whip = LD (57) + Alliance (1) = 58

= 319, so Lib/Lab is enough for a majority.

I'm also led to believe the independent Ulster Unionist will actually take the Labour whip, rather than Tory and that's why she ran as an independent, so 320.

SNP have said they would work with Labour but not Tory. Let's face it, Labour aren't going to cut Scotland's money, plus the SNP want PR, so even if they aren't in a coalition, they won't stand against a Labour Queen's Speech. They also don't vote on English matters, which makes them easier bedfellows again.

I don't see huge problems with a Milliband led Labour (Brown will be gone as soon as it's feasible)/Lib pact. 2 years to implement PR and have Vince Cable, Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown to sort out the economy. Some hard-hitters in there.

That's why Cameron is under a lot of pressure to get the deal right. Labour has first dibs to form a government. Tory has no right to form a minority government if he can't make a deal with LD.

Edited by starchief
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see huge problems with a Milliband led Labour (Brown will be gone as soon as it's feasible)/Lib pact.

I do. The 2nd consecutive general election where we end up with a PM who wasn't the leader people voted for? Democratically scandalous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't have presidential system. None of us ever vote for who to be Prime Minister. We just vote for our own MP. Personally, I now think it's got to the stage where Leaders are so important that we should consider a Presidential system. (but I don't think it'll happen)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't have presidential system. None of us ever vote for who to be Prime Minister. We just vote for our own MP.

Technically yes, but most people vote for a party, regardless of whichever goon is standing locally.

It's equally deceitful when an MP switches party allegiance after getting voted in. There should be an enforced by-election if that happens, and there should be another general election called if the winning party changes leader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definitely agree with you on the first. Bit more complex on the second but if my electoral reform came in, you'd be going to the polls every month (and I'm not joking - electorate would make far more decisions, so they'd have to have a better command of the issues). Pity I don't even get a vote these days (and I'm certainly not getting one in Egypt)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup... I see Coamrade Foaxy only polled about 300 votes. Was Coamrade Toammy even standing or is he still in that swingers' club? And whatever happened to Sister Rosy?

I suppose moderate Socialism has sort of been a victim of its own success while extreme Socialism simply got rumbled as the ultimate oppression of the Proletariat.

After a steady build up, moderate Socialism came into its own in this country post 1945 due to special conditions prevailing as a result of the war which had just ended and also to meet a demand for the Welfare State (which worked) and to Nationalise various industries (which broadly didn't).

It enjoyed a 30 year heyday but, with many of its objectives achieved, went into decline - helped on its way by gross misbehaviour on the part of the Unions in the 60s and 70s. However it took the entire 80s and a bit more for it to dawn that it wasn't working and Socialism had become unelectable. So indirectly, Socialism's extremes landed us with over a decade of Thatcherism.

Then Tony and Cronies twigged that to become electable, Labour was going to have to ditch Socialism (and with it Clause 4 - common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange) but what the hell... Socialism is the greatest political philosophy in the world... until you have to apply it to yourself.

Never mind, though. It didn't really work in Russia either, despite Stalin and friends doing their best to impose it and bumping off about 20 million people in the attempt between 1917 and 1990.

In summary... I think we have moved into a post Socilalist world where the likes of Coamrade Foaxy are mere dinosaurs.

Tommy Sheridan lost his deposit in Glasgow South West with 931 votes (2.9%). This constituency contains most of the old Pollock constituency that has consistently produced the strongest far-left vote since 1992 when Sheridan finished second from his prison cell with almost 20% of the vote. His decline, it seems, is almost complete.

Even in the bourgeois paradise of Edinburgh South West, Colin Fox will be embarrassed with 319 votes. One of them was mine, though it was cast more out of the frustration and helplessness that comes with living in a safe Labour seat than any connection with the tabloid-like slogans which characterised his campaign.

I haven't looked through all of the results yet, but i think i can safely say that none of the far-left candidates kept their deposits. This may well be end for 'dinosaurs' like Tommy and Foxy, with their out-dated references to the proletariat and Trotsky, but that certainly doesn't represent the end for more extreme forms of socialism.

The effects of this recession have still not been felt by the majority of working people in this country and as cuts to pay, pensions and services become a reality over the next 4-5 years, i predict that we will see an increase in militancy and louder calls for government to establish more control over the economy and to implement a more redistributive tax system. While Cameron and Clegg work out the details of their coalition, those on the left (the Greens, the Unions, and the old socialists), should be working on a coalition of their own which represents the millions of frustrated and disenfranchised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Liberal Democrats and the COnservatives are still talking over possible coaltion. Labour are still technically in power.

I don't think they will form a formal coalition but the Liberals will allow them to form a minority government, which will limp on until October when we'll have another election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tommy Sheridan lost his deposit in Glasgow South West with 931 votes (2.9%). This constituency contains most of the old Pollock constituency that has consistently produced the strongest far-left vote since 1992 when Sheridan finished second from his prison cell with almost 20% of the vote. His decline, it seems, is almost complete.

Even in the bourgeois paradise of Edinburgh South West, Colin Fox will be embarrassed with 319 votes. One of them was mine, though it was cast more out of the frustration and helplessness that comes with living in a safe Labour seat than any connection with the tabloid-like slogans which characterised his campaign.

I haven't looked through all of the results yet, but i think i can safely say that none of the far-left candidates kept their deposits. This may well be end for 'dinosaurs' like Tommy and Foxy, with their out-dated references to the proletariat and Trotsky, but that certainly doesn't represent the end for more extreme forms of socialism.

The effects of this recession have still not been felt by the majority of working people in this country and as cuts to pay, pensions and services become a reality over the next 4-5 years, i predict that we will see an increase in militancy and louder calls for government to establish more control over the economy and to implement a more redistributive tax system. While Cameron and Clegg work out the details of their coalition, those on the left (the Greens, the Unions, and the old socialists), should be working on a coalition of their own which represents the millions of frustrated and disenfranchised.

The far left in Scotland had it's chance when they had five MSPs elected in 2003 and they blew it in spectacular style. Rather than use their position to advance any clear policies they engaged in stunts (staging 'protests' in the chamber, writing on their hands when taking the oath etc) and finally fell apart in a Dundee-style meltdown with Sheridan's libel trial. They really are an absolutely useless shower - anyone remember COlin Fox dressing up as Robin Hood and running around Buchanan Street in Glasgow as a photo op a few years ago? :lol:

The final nail in the coffin could yet arrive with Gail and Tommy due in court soon to face charges of perjury - the one certainty of that whole sorry episode is that some SSP members must have lied in court. I know who my money is on it being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a confidence and supply model of government is now going to be the most likely outcome. The positions on Europe and PR are far too polarised to reach any kind of coalition agreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may well be end for 'dinosaurs' like Tommy and Foxy, with their out-dated references to the proletariat and Trotsky, but that certainly doesn't represent the end for more extreme forms of socialism.

Yes, I think the Citizen Smith comedy back in the 80s, where poor Wolfie was such a stereotype, exposed this kind of politics quite brutally.

Otherwise, I'm getting quite worried about stories about all these MPs "taking the whip". Is this what they'll be up to next, now that it will be more difficult to fiddle expenses?

Remember Harvey Proctor anybody?

:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just noticed that UKIP and the BNP got a lot more votes than the SNP.

I am really dissapointed by how poor the Socialist Parties have done.

Yup... I see Coamrade Foaxy only polled about 300 votes. Was Coamrade Toammy even standing or is he still in that swingers' club? And whatever happened to Sister Rosy?

I suppose moderate Socialism has sort of been a victim of its own success while extreme Socialism simply got rumbled as the ultimate oppression of the Proletariat.

After a steady build up, moderate Socialism came into its own in this country post 1945 due to special conditions prevailing as a result of the war which had just ended and also to meet a demand for the Welfare State (which worked) and to Nationalise various industries (which broadly didn't).

It enjoyed a 30 year heyday but, with many of its objectives achieved, went into decline - helped on its way by gross misbehaviour on the part of the Unions in the 60s and 70s. However it took the entire 80s and a bit more for it to dawn that it wasn't working and Socialism had become unelectable. So indirectly, Socialism's extremes landed us with over a decade of Thatcherism.

Then Tony and Cronies twigged that to become electable, Labour was going to have to ditch Socialism (and with it Clause 4 - common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange) but what the hell... Socialism is the greatest political philosophy in the world... until you have to apply it to yourself.

Never mind, though. It didn't really work in Russia either, despite Stalin and friends doing their best to impose it and bumping off about 20 million people in the attempt between 1917 and 1990.

In summary... I think we have moved into a post Socilalist world where the likes of Coamrade Foaxy are mere dinosaurs.

Scabbed the teachers' strikes then Chuck?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just noticed that UKIP and the BNP got a lot more votes than the SNP.

I am really dissapointed by how poor the Socialist Parties have done.

Yup... I see Coamrade Foaxy only polled about 300 votes. Was Coamrade Toammy even standing or is he still in that swingers' club? And whatever happened to Sister Rosy?

I suppose moderate Socialism has sort of been a victim of its own success while extreme Socialism simply got rumbled as the ultimate oppression of the Proletariat.

After a steady build up, moderate Socialism came into its own in this country post 1945 due to special conditions prevailing as a result of the war which had just ended and also to meet a demand for the Welfare State (which worked) and to Nationalise various industries (which broadly didn't).

It enjoyed a 30 year heyday but, with many of its objectives achieved, went into decline - helped on its way by gross misbehaviour on the part of the Unions in the 60s and 70s. However it took the entire 80s and a bit more for it to dawn that it wasn't working and Socialism had become unelectable. So indirectly, Socialism's extremes landed us with over a decade of Thatcherism.

Then Tony and Cronies twigged that to become electable, Labour was going to have to ditch Socialism (and with it Clause 4 - common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange) but what the hell... Socialism is the greatest political philosophy in the world... until you have to apply it to yourself.

Never mind, though. It didn't really work in Russia either, despite Stalin and friends doing their best to impose it and bumping off about 20 million people in the attempt between 1917 and 1990.

In summary... I think we have moved into a post Socilalist world where the likes of Coamrade Foaxy are mere dinosaurs.

Scabbed the teachers' strikes then Chuck?

Don't quite see the relevance of the question but... no, I was out each and every time - until the Labour Party started bricking it about losing the forthcoming 1987 election and instructed John Pollock to pull out the troops and come to an agreeement, which Pollock obediently did to the extent that he even threatened to resign if we didn't comply with his most dramaticc of U turns.

They mightn't have bothered, though - Wurzel Gummidge in the Donkey Jacket and his Fellow Travellers had long since made Labour unelectable.

A wee thought, though, about the negotiations which are currently going on between the Tories and the LibDems at a time when the country desperately and urgently needs a format for stable government. What is REALLY driving the negotiators? Is it the need of the country or the personal or party interests of their respective sets of politicians?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bit of a desperate yet clever move from Gordon Brown there in a last ditch attempt to pull in the Lib Dems to a coalition with Labour and make the Tories show their hand.Time will tell if the Lib Dems will bite but i get the feeling whatever happens, the Lib Dems may come out of it badly in the public eye.

There will be a lot of pissed of people if we end up with a prime minister nobody voted for, a change to the election system nobody voted for and a stitch up government of losers.That said, if you look at the way Scotland voted to keep the Tories out then whatever happens there's a real north/south divide.

The way the seats are split, the only option for a strong and stable government would be the Tory/Lib coalition the way i see it. Should Clegg get into bed with Labour they would still rely on others for a majority and when you consider the way the country is just now i don't see that lasting and we'll be at the polls again very soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lib dem / labour coalition supported by the nationalists is a possibility and highlights the absurdity of our current electoral system. With just one Tory MP in Scotland it could be that legislation on Health, Education etc is pushed through due to the support of MPs representing constituencies where these subjects have no relevance because they are devolved matters in Wales and Scotland.

Of course, having got the most votes the Tories will be crying "foul" but maybe they should be crying "fowl" as it will be the chickens coming home to roost. If the English Tories had any concept of what democracy actually means we would have had electoral reform a long time ago and they would not be in this mess now.

The Tories should be offering the Lib Dems PR in exchange for support for legislation to prevent Scottish and Welsh MPs voting on devolved matters. We could then have an election based on democratic principles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd far prefer the Lab/Lib pact but I just don't think it's stable enough. So, to protect my savings (well, you have to don't you), I'd go for the Con/Lib pact. Naturally, it depends what's in there. If Vince Cable is a driving force, then I'd be relieved. George Osbourne is such a weak link. Even if Ken Clarke stepped in, I'd be happier. AV+ is a decent voting system and will almost certainly pass a referendum, so I hope that's not stopping the Lib Dems. I'd like to hear why the Lib Dems are delaying (although, I don't think it's too long).

Labour just don't have the numbers, I'm afraid to offer long-term stability. So, if the Tories can offer it, then LD should accept. I'd love to hear what's on the table.

I do think it's a bit rum English voters decrying that a UK govt should be made up of Irish, Welsh, Scots and English MPs, instead of just from an English, with some Welsh, party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. : Terms of Use : Guidelines : Privacy Policy